The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. There is no evidence to prove that the container of this case was damaged, and even though the defendant did not have an intention to flee, the court below erred in finding the defendant guilty by misunderstanding the fact.

2. Determination

A. The term "damage and damage" means destroying or reducing the original utility of a container by exercising the power of direct force on all or part of the goods or documents by causing physical damage to the material or body. It does not necessarily require damage to an essential part of the article and constitutes a damage even if it is minor to the extent that it can be simply repaired. The issue of the damage of a container in this case is not determined by the victim's intention or the determination of the amount of damage, but should be objectively determined by the material or physical condition of the damaged article.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's assertion against this is not accepted, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the container was partially damaged due to the accident of this case, taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the top top top top of the vehicle driven by the defendant at the time of the accident of this case and the corner of the container conflict with each other; (ii) the relevant part of the collision was covered by the container; and (iii) the F, the owner of the container, stated that the container was covered by the accident of this case.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below at the court below as to the defendant's intention to escape, the defendant is forced to leave the victim F to leave the scene immediately after the accident, and the facts between neighboring restaurants, the defendant was taking meals in neighboring restaurants, and the victim was waiting for the defendant, but a considerable time has elapsed.